Are we not spending enough on our military?

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

Those weren't wars on the U.S... those were wars the U.S. involved itself in. Big difference.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

Those weren't wars on the U.S... those were wars the U.S. involved itself in. Big difference.

In that case theres been no direct war on a world superpower since WWII.

But if nuclear arms were the end all be all, why didnt NK, NV and Iraq immediately surrender when the US of A showed up?
because everyone knows nuclear arms are not a first strike type of item (Unless your batsh1t crazy). I mean hell, even Kim Wong John is smart enough to know not to mess around with the nukes.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

Those weren't wars on the U.S... those were wars the U.S. involved itself in. Big difference.

In that case theres been no direct war on a world superpower since WWII.

But if nuclear arms were the end all be all, why didnt NK, NV and Iraq immediately surrender when the US of A showed up?
because everyone knows nuclear arms are not a first strike type of item (Unless your batsh1t crazy). I mean hell, even Kim Wong John is smart enough to know not to mess around with the nukes.

Referring that, no stealth aircraft is going to bother them either.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

Those weren't wars on the U.S... those were wars the U.S. involved itself in. Big difference.

In that case theres been no direct war on a world superpower since WWII.

But if nuclear arms were the end all be all, why didnt NK, NV and Iraq immediately surrender when the US of A showed up?
because everyone knows nuclear arms are not a first strike type of item (Unless your batsh1t crazy). I mean hell, even Kim Wong John is smart enough to know not to mess around with the nukes.

Referring that, no stealth aircraft is going to bother them either.

Why wouldnt it? 😕

You have to understand the place of the weapon in the big scheme of things.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think nuclear bombs stopped others from having conventional wars with the U.S. 60 years ago.

Do you make stuff up often?? Or do you just lie?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I&II.

Those weren't wars on the U.S... those were wars the U.S. involved itself in. Big difference.

In that case theres been no direct war on a world superpower since WWII.

But if nuclear arms were the end all be all, why didnt NK, NV and Iraq immediately surrender when the US of A showed up?
because everyone knows nuclear arms are not a first strike type of item (Unless your batsh1t crazy). I mean hell, even Kim Wong John is smart enough to know not to mess around with the nukes.

Referring that, no stealth aircraft is going to bother them either.

Why wouldnt it? 😕

You have to understand the place of the weapon in the big scheme of things.

Why would terrorists who hide among civilians care about aircraft? Can the aircraft detect the terrorists among them?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aimster
Russia is already developing a plane that will be in direct competition with the F-22.

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/s37.htm

Russian aviation has been better if not on par with previous generation U.S aircraft.

Russian aviation hasnt been on par. Talk to the guys who flew the pieces of sh1t. They may have performed well in some regards, but overall they werent up to snuff with what we had(ve).

And for a direct competitor to the F-22, there wont be one for probably decades.

*EDIT*
But it does look BADASS

India's Air Force beat the U.S Air Force with their Russian crap.

SU-27 is an amazing aircraft. I don't think anyone who has flown those series of aircraft are going to call it a piece of crap. Even the Mig-29 is nicely designed for it's old age.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The cost/benefit ratio of saving a few lives for tens of billions of dollars is quite poor.

That sounds like a great reason for not implementing any kind of universal health care.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
We don't spend too little...we spend far far far too much. In my opinion we should cut our military spending by 50-75%. America is hyper militaristic and crazy on military spending because we conjure up threats that don't exist.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The cost/benefit ratio of saving a few lives for tens of billions of dollars is quite poor.

That sounds like a great reason for not implementing any kind of universal health care.

I wasn't aware that health care costs per patient in the US approached a billion dollars per head.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The cost/benefit ratio of saving a few lives for tens of billions of dollars is quite poor.

That sounds like a great reason for not implementing any kind of universal health care.

I wasn't aware that health care costs per patient in the US approached a billion dollars per head.

Oh yes it is! In fact, the only reason it doesn't reach the trillion dollar level is because we put a limit on it! and that limit is $999B! And not a penny more!

 

[umbrella39]

This is NOT about the war so save your anti-war comments for another thread.

Well then let's discuss then why a Prof. does not know the difference in the words to and too. Like in your Topic Summary. Perhaps we should forget this whole "war" crap and concentrate on our schools, they obviously failed you. This is not an isolated incident.

:roll:

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


The best part about your post is that you claim that you're helping me with my ignorance... while spewing a bunch of crap that is so clearly wrong that a 7th grader should know it.

If you're going to talk about Mutual Assured Destruction however, there are a few things you should know. While it is true that the USSR and the US never engaged in a direct war, we engaged in a number of proxy conflicts that caused millions of deaths.

There are always proxy conflicts that have caused millions of deaths.

That isn't going to change no matter who is in power and at what time. It is human nature not to be peaceful sadly enough. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

I challenge you to show me a period in time in which "proxy conflicts" that killed millions did'nt occur.

Our current doctrine is 'overwhelming superiority' as a method to promote our interests. I fail to see where this has paid the dividends that we put into it, and therefore think this ill advised theory should be done away with.

Of course you do, because you refuse to see it.

You comically gloss over the fact that the vast majority of our technological advances stem from military research. Do a tiny amount of research and you will realize how many advances and technologies we civillians enjoy today because of military research.

I know its tempting to reach into your bag and let fly with one of your pre-canned knee-jerk insults every time you see an opinion that you don't agree with... and there are in fact some reasonable arguments for having a gigantic military. (that you didn't even try to make) but in this case you just end up looking foolish.

Hrm, I believe ya beat me to the knee jerking with your comment of "America is hyper militaristic and crazy on military spending because we conjure up threats that don't exist." Huffington would be so proud.

But that isn't the point.

The point is when you have nations of relative strength they will wage war in one way or another and people will suffer because of it.

Also for the record, Austria and Germany were not responsible for WW I though we decided to blame it on them I suggest ya check out History 101 because you go spewing that drivel.

While you are there ask your professor about hegemonic stability theory.

Knowledge is power!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The cost/benefit ratio of saving a few lives for tens of billions of dollars is quite poor.

That sounds like a great reason for not implementing any kind of universal health care.

I wasn't aware that health care costs per patient in the US approached a billion dollars per head.

Don't look at me, you're the one who's trying to put price tags on human life. At the same time I often hear bleeding heart liberals toss around the phrase "If it saves just one life, it was worth the price."

Worth what? How much are lives worth? It'd be nice if someone could pin that number down, it would make a lot of policies so much easier to create.

 

[fskimospy]

Deudalus,

Well you're wrong about WWI, but I don't really feel like derailing this too much. Here's an interesting exerpt for you however:

The year 1913 ended with leading strategists in Austria-Hungary still favoring war against Serbia, and against Russia if Russia intervened. Austria-Hungary's military leaders feared Russia's growing military capability, and they favored getting the war with Serbia over with before Russia strengthened its military forces.

The hawks in Austria-Hungary had an ally in Germany's supreme army commander, von Moltke, who wrote his Austrian counterpart that a war between "Germandom" (which included German Austrians) and "Slavdom" (the Russians and Serbs) was inevitable. Von Moltke believed that "eternal peace" was a "pipe dream" and that if war were inevitable it would be best to launch it at a most opportune time. He too was concerned about the growing strength of Russia's military, and he believed it would be opportune to have a war before Russia and France had time to reduce significantly the gap in military capability between themselves and Germany.

If you are interested in educating yourself about the first world war, a book called The Guns of August is a pretty entertaining read and is a very good resource on the lead up and first months of the war. It may help you understand the situation better.

Your post is full of misinformation and half truths. According to the White House research spending for the military in 2004 (latest figures available) was about 61 billion. Corporate R+D spendingin the US for 2002 (latest figures I could find) was about 276 billion. A bit over six times military R+D. While certain projects certainly benefit from the government's ability to fund ventures with a longer term outlook, to say that the "vast majority" of our technological advances stem from military research.. is laughable.

So far we have your wrong WWI argument, your wrong R+D argument, and the argument that 'there are always proxy conflicts that kill millions of people so don't worry about it' argument. These are again... awfully poor reasons to spend 600 billion + a year.

 

[Deudalus]

Your post is full of misinformation and half truths. According to the White House research spending for the military in 2004 (latest figures available) was about 61 billion. Corporate R+D spendingin the US for 2002 (latest figures I could find) was about 276 billion. A bit over six times military R+D. While certain projects certainly benefit from the government's ability to fund ventures with a longer term outlook, to say that the "vast majority" of our technological advances stem from military research.. is laughable.

My point is not that they still do to the same degree.

The techonological boom happened in the US largely because of military spending and finding ways to compete with the Russians.

Examples:

The space program as a whole
Soongram technology from Sonar equipment
The interstate system http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question1
New WiFi tech http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/data/2004-03-17-wifi-mesh_x.htm
Satellites and their uses for us today

The list goes on and on.

Is it as dramatically evident now as it was then? No. But it is still true never the less.

Also if you truly want to understand the events leading up to WW 1 and how it happened then you have to delve a bit deeper. Russian aggression in the late 1800's and early 1900's directly led to the alliances formed. Austria, Hungary, and other nations banded together to try to ward off Russian agression specifically in the Balkans and Turkey. It is these alliances, and the later alliances that were formed between Russia, France, and others that caused WW 1 to be such a huge problem.

If one went to war they all went to war, it was a very simple concept that we still employ today. Germany acted aggressively in the days leading up to the war there is no doubt in that. The thing you have to remember though is that they did so because Russia and France had acted so aggressively prior to that. They felt that they had no choice.

Either way I think we basically agree on the WW 1 thing, just maybe disagree on some details. In the end the facts are the facts, we just interpret them differently based on our own viewpoints.


One thing we can be sure on though is the French people sucked as bad then as they do now:

When the campaign was over, 90 percent of France's iron mines and 83 percent of its heavy industry was in German hands. Joffre, the man who lost northeastern France, became a French national hero. Meanwhile, Messimy, who had saved Paris, had to resign as war minister and join up as an ordinary soldier. Ferdinand Foch, author of the doctrine that the offensive always wins and a commander in the disastrous Lorraine offensive, would go on to become the overall allied commander. On the German side, Moltke was discredited and replaced by Falkenhayn.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aimster
Russia is already developing a plane that will be in direct competition with the F-22.

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/s37.htm

Russian aviation has been better if not on par with previous generation U.S aircraft.

Russian aviation hasnt been on par. Talk to the guys who flew the pieces of sh1t. They may have performed well in some regards, but overall they werent up to snuff with what we had(ve).

And for a direct competitor to the F-22, there wont be one for probably decades.

*EDIT*
But it does look BADASS

India's Air Force beat the U.S Air Force with their Russian crap.

SU-27 is an amazing aircraft. I don't think anyone who has flown those series of aircraft are going to call it a piece of crap. Even the Mig-29 is nicely designed for it's old age.

When did this happen? I must have missed that war.

So for the advance Russian jets have a lousy track record in combat, but that is most likely due to poor training.
We have yet to see two 4th generation fighters with highly trained pilots face each other in real combat.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aimster
Russia is already developing a plane that will be in direct competition with the F-22.

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/s37.htm

Russian aviation has been better if not on par with previous generation U.S aircraft.

Russian aviation hasnt been on par. Talk to the guys who flew the pieces of sh1t. They may have performed well in some regards, but overall they werent up to snuff with what we had(ve).

And for a direct competitor to the F-22, there wont be one for probably decades.

*EDIT*
But it does look BADASS

India's Air Force beat the U.S Air Force with their Russian crap.

SU-27 is an amazing aircraft. I don't think anyone who has flown those series of aircraft are going to call it a piece of crap. Even the Mig-29 is nicely designed for it's old age.

When did this happen? I must have missed that war.

So for the advance Russian jets have a lousy track record in combat, but that is most likely due to poor training.
We have yet to see two 4th generation fighters with highly trained pilots face each other in real combat.

U.S Air Force has exercises with nations every year or so.
India beat the U.S F-16s with their Su-30s

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S Air Force has exercises with nations every year or so.
India beat the U.S F-16s with their Su-30s

Aren't F-16s the least capable of our fighters behind the F-15 and F-18?

Although they did a bang up job in Iron Eagle.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S Air Force has exercises with nations every year or so.
India beat the U.S F-16s with their Su-30s

Aren't F-16s the least capable of our fighters behind the F-15 and F-18?

Although they did a bang up job in Iron Eagle.

My mistake.
It was both F-16s and F-15s.

But to be fair.. the U.S didn't use their best tech.
Also in the excise the U.S saw tech installed in the Indian aircraft that they were not used to (guess India installed it themselves). I believe the U.S got arrogant and gave India an advantage thinking they could win.

I'd love to see an Israeli/UAE F-16 go up against a Su-35.
See who the winner would be. All tech on the table.

Whoever has the longest range radar/missile would win.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think you're missing several important points here. First of all, blaming Clinton or bitching about low levels of spending during the 90's makes little sense. Military funding for the sake of military spending is silly, you spend in proportion to the threat. Am I the only person who can think of a threat we were facing during the 60's that was not so much of a worry during the 90's?

Second, spending as a portion of GDP for the sake of spending a portion of GDP is also pretty silly. It's not like there is a magic formula for what percentage it takes to defend the country for all GDPs, and our GDP now is much higher than it was when the percentage was higher. Not only does the comparison make little sense in real terms, it makes no sense as a benchmark. While 4% might be more than we need now, 4% might not be enough if there was a significant economic downturn.

But the real point is that "military spending" is an almost useless measure of military effectiveness. The problems our current military is facing have less to do with HOW MUCH we spent in previous years than WHAT we spent it on. Even Mr. Talent admits that. Even doubling spending would be useless if we continued to spend so much money on an Air Force and Navy that have no real opponents to speak of, and are unlikely to face a significant threat in the near future. Even a worst case scenario war with China would probably not overly tax our air or water capabilities. But the Army and the Marines are being called on to do far more, and they aren't getting nearly enough of the pie to do that job. We don't need to raise funding, just make sure it goes to the right sources.

And I can't help but find it somewhat hypocritical that you "ban" political statements in a thread posting something from that enormous tool, Jim Talent, where he seems to have the sole objective of bashing Clinton (although he does manage to find time to pimp for the Heritage Foundation and their Orwellian sounding program). Military funding is certainly a good topic for debate, but I'd like a higher class of debater, if you please.

You dont spend money on threats when they exist, that would be just downright stupid. If that was the case we'd still be trying to upgrade from F-4 jets.

You spend money to stay ahead of others, regardless of if their a threat or not.

Obviously, but read the part that I bolded. Clearly funding our armed forces as they are needed would result in an unacceptable ramp-up time to deal with new threats, but it's also not a good idea to simply fund EVERYTHING because it MIGHT help with some future threat. Some thought needs to be put into how we fund the armed forces, instead of building things because it's a cool capability, we should build and fund them either because they are useful right now, or are likely to be needed sometime in the near future.